Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 08:21 AM EST |
I am not a native English speaker. It is in fact my 4th
language (in order, Spanish, Catalan, French and English). I
can usually pass as not completely clueless on forums (I can
speak English, though my accent is really strange, or so I'm
told, as it's a mix of British, American and French -
anyway, I would never pass as a native). However, it seems
that English conflates two similarly spelled Spanish words
into the word "prejudice":
"Prejuicio" -> literally "before (pre) trial (juicio)".
Refers to a bias against something, usually before trying
it. "I am prejudiced against Apple" would show that despite
not owning an Apple device, i am unlikely to buy one.
"Perjuicio" -> damage, hurt, something that is detrimental.
This seems to be the equivalent of the legal meaning of
"prejudice", as in "dismissal with prejudice" or "this
action would not prejudice the other side"
In Spanish, most people mistake one word for the other, but
in English, it seems that that mistake has been enshrined
into the language. Am I right? or did I completely mess it
up? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 11:21 AM EST |
Fa
ntastic pictures of a flooded Venice. Wonder how
badly the insurance rates
will rise?
FYI, Venice is on my bucket list, along with
Florence.
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 11:47 AM EST |
Part of a longer interview with Scalia wherein he discusses the politicization
of the Supreme Court nomination process (making points which I think could also
be more widely applied)
http://www.nationalreview.com/media/uncommonknowledge/333544
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: UncleVom on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 11:47 AM EST |
Is it now too late for Apple to fully recover from the litigation game and its
side effects?
I think so.
There are a lot of things, such as competition, affecting the stock price, but I
think the legal battles have set the tone.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL
Kinda reminds of the old SCO death watch, but I don't think Apple is heading to
the pink sheets anytime soon.
Four hundred bucks before the calendar New Year after the Christmas sales?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:04 PM EST |
The Court ruled that the parents had met their parental obligations
when they informed their child of “basic do’s and don’ts” including that
file-sharing copyrighted content online is illegal.
Furthermore, the Court
ruled that the parents were not required to monitor their child’s online
activities nor install special software to restrict his online behavior. This
would only be required should the parents have “reasonable grounds” to presume
that their child would engage in infringing activities online.
enigmax, TorrentFreak[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:16 PM EST |
a fun read if you're into that sort of thing
http://www.sievesofchaos.com/ [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:38 PM EST |
The numbers
don't lie: There is Android and then there is everything else --- RMS:
The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:58 PM EST |
Denham's main concern is about what happens to the numbers that do
not appear in the RCMP's list. The ALPR system also records the time and
location of the scan and takes a picture of the vehicle and the licence
plate.
"This is personal information about the owners of vehicles that are
scanned by ALPR, but who are not of interest to police," she wrote in her
report, which considered whether the Victoria police department's practices
comply with B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
"In
my view, the use and disclosure of this information for unspecified purposes
would not be justifiable under FIPPA," she said. "Collecting personal
information for law enforcement purposes does not extend to retaining
information on the suspicionless activities of citizens just in case it may be
useful in the future."
Andrew MacLeod, The Tyee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 01:29 PM EST |
If Obama fails to get the needed changes in the tax code will you know how much
the Repubican party will cost you?
OUCH!!! Clicky
here [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 08:02 PM EST |
eBay sued over will-not-recruit agreement with Intuit - REUTERS [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|